From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make_request handle arbitrarily sized bios Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 01:02:05 -0800 Message-ID: <20150808090205.GA15061@kmo-pixel> References: <20150731213831.GA16464@redhat.com> <1438412290.26596.14.camel@hasee> <20150801163356.GA21478@redhat.com> <1438581502.26596.24.camel@hasee> <20150804113626.GA12682@lst.de> <1438754604.29731.31.camel@hasee> <20150807073001.GA17485@lst.de> <1438990806.24452.8.camel@ssi> <55C5C348.1070307@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55C5C348.1070307@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: device-mapper development , Christoph Hellwig , Neil@redhat.com, Mike Snitzer , Ming Lei , Al@redhat.com, Alasdair Kergon , Lars Ellenberg , Philip Kelleher , Christoph Hellwig , Nitin Gupta , Ming Lin , Oleg Drokin , Viro , Jens Axboe , Andreas Dilger , Geoff Levand , Jiri Kosina , lkml , Jim Paris , Minchan Kim , Dongsu Park , drbd-user@lists.linbit.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 10:52:24AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Wouldn't it be easier to move both max_write_same_sectors and > max_discard sectors to 64 bit (ie to type sector_t) and be done with the > overflow? > Seems to me this is far too much coding around self-imposed restrictions... It's bio->bi_iter.bi_size that would have to be increased to 64 bits. Which I suppose wouldn't actually increase the size of struct bio (when sector_t is 64 bits), since struct bvec_iter has padding right now... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zimbra13.linbit.com (zimbra.linbit.com [212.69.161.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail09.linbit.com (LINBIT Mail Daemon) with ESMTPS id 995F4105570E for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra13.linbit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2AD2BEE36 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zimbra13.linbit.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra13.linbit.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id eF4TKR1XASlN for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra13.linbit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467C82BEE40 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zimbra13.linbit.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra13.linbit.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id mtf0TOxtD79h for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from soda.linbit (tuerlsteher.linbit.com [86.59.100.100]) by zimbra13.linbit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 128BA2BEE36 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:20:16 +0200 (CEST) Resent-Message-ID: <20150911132015.GT3436@soda.linbit> From: Kent Overstreet To: Hannes Reinecke Message-ID: <20150808090205.GA15061@kmo-pixel> References: <20150731213831.GA16464@redhat.com> <1438412290.26596.14.camel@hasee> <20150801163356.GA21478@redhat.com> <1438581502.26596.24.camel@hasee> <20150804113626.GA12682@lst.de> <1438754604.29731.31.camel@hasee> <20150807073001.GA17485@lst.de> <1438990806.24452.8.camel@ssi> <55C5C348.1070307@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55C5C348.1070307@suse.de> Cc: Mike Snitzer , Ming Lei , Neil@redhat.com, device-mapper development , Christoph Hellwig , Alasdair Kergon , Lars Ellenberg , Philip Kelleher , Christoph Hellwig , Nitin Gupta , Ming Lin , Al@redhat.com, Oleg Drokin , Viro , Jens Axboe , Andreas Dilger , Geoff Levand , Jiri Kosina , lkml , Jim Paris , Minchan Kim , Dongsu Park , drbd-user@lists.linbit.com Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] [dm-devel] [PATCH v5 01/11] block: make generic_make_request handle arbitrarily sized bios List-Id: "*Coordination* of development, patches, contributions -- *Questions* \(even to developers\) go to drbd-user, please." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:21:07 -0000 On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 10:52:24AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > Wouldn't it be easier to move both max_write_same_sectors and > max_discard sectors to 64 bit (ie to type sector_t) and be done with the > overflow? > Seems to me this is far too much coding around self-imposed restrictions... It's bio->bi_iter.bi_size that would have to be increased to 64 bits. Which I suppose wouldn't actually increase the size of struct bio (when sector_t is 64 bits), since struct bvec_iter has padding right now...